Giving in Numbers 2014

Giving in Numbers

2014 EDITION

IN ASSOCIATION WITH

An in-depth analysis of 2013 corporate giving and employee engagement data from 261 of the worlds leading companies.

CEC

P | GIVING IN

NUMBER

S

2014

EDITIO

N

ABOUT CECP CECP is a coalition of CEOs united in the belief that societal improvement is an essential measure of business performance. Founded in 1999 by Paul Newman and other business leaders, CECP has grown to a movement of 150 CEOs of the worlds largest companies across all industries. Revenues of engaged companies sum to $7 trillion annually. A nonprofit organization, CECP offers participating companies one-on-one consultation, networking events, exclusive data, media support, and case studies on corporate engagement. For more information, visit cecp.co.

ABOUT CECP DATA SOLUTIONSThe Giving in Numbers Survey collects data that populates a customizable, online benchmarking database containing more than $155 billion in comparative data collected since 2001. In addition, CECP researchers are available for in-depth data consultations for all CECP-affiliated companies. If your company is interested in accessing better metrics and accurate peer-to-peer reporting to serve its corporate giving, contact CECP: [email protected] or 212-825-1000.

ABOUT THE CONFERENCE BOARDThe Conference Board is a global, independent business membership and research association working in the public interest. Its mission is unique: To provide the worlds leading organizations with the practical knowledge they need to improve their performance and better serve society. The Conference Board conducts research and hosts webcasts and conferences on corporate philanthropy, citizenship, sustainability, and other corporate leadership issues. In 2014, The Conference Board Initiative on Corporate Philanthropy launched Giving Thoughts, a blog and online publication series that engages corporate philanthropy experts in an open dialogue about topical issues of concern to member companies. Among the topics explored in this series is social impact measurement, while authors featured include Professor Paul Brest of the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society and Gina Anderson of the Centre for Social Impact at the University of New South Wales, Australia.

The Conference Boards councils provide exclusive peer learning opportunities in which executives share best practices and solve problems in a highly confidential and collab-orative environment. Councils discussing or closely related to corporate philanthropy include Contributions Council I and II, Global Social Investing Council, and Business and Education Council. The Conference Board is a non-advocacy, not-for-profit entity hold-ing 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status in the United States. www.conference-board.org. For more information, please contact Jonathan Liu: [email protected] or 212-339-0257.

Download additional copies of this report at: cecp.co/research or conference-board.org/publications.

When referencing findings from this report, please list the source as: CECP, in association with The Conference Board. Giving in Numbers: 2014 Edition.

Copyright 2014 by CECP.

Giving in Numbers

IN ASSOCIATION WITH

2014 EDITION

An in-depth analysis of 2013 corporate giving and employee engagement data from 261 of the worlds leading companies.

2 CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the Great Recession ended in 2009. Giving in Numbers: 2014 Edition explores how corporate philanthropy and socially motivated employee engagement programs have emerged in the post-recession era. Research from The Conference Board has shown that consumer confidence and CEO expectations improved annually since 2010; moreover, corporate giving has thrived, particularly among companies with strong business growth. From 2010 to 2013, corporate giving increased for a majority of companies (64%), but the growth of giving has slowed: 2013 saw the largest marginal change by companies that decreased giving and the smallest marginal change by companies that increased giving.

CEOs at CECPs 2014 CEO event, the Board of Boards, identified employees as the most important stakeholder influencing decisions to expand community investments. In turn, companies are expanding their socially motivated employee engagement opportunities to offer new ways for employees to participate in company efforts. For example, Pro Bono Service programs were made available by companies in each industry for the first time. Generous employee service policies do not typically offset cash contributions: 67% of companies offering Pro Bono Services in 2013 had increased cash giving since 2010. Also, employee participation in matching gifts generally led to increased corporate cash giving overall. Keep up the great work, employees!

Employees are not the only stakeholder group interested in a companys effect on society. Nielsen reports that a majority of consumers responding to the Nielsen Global Survey on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) indicate they are willing to pay extra for products and services from companies that are committed to positive social and environmental impact. Whats more, the percentage willing to pay that premium in 2014 has increased since 2011.

Corporate funders are clearly interested in the social value created by grantmaking programs. A majority (76%) of companies measured societal outcomes and/or impacts in 2013, the inaugural year in which Giving in Numbers included specific questions about program evaluation. Education, Health and Social Services, and Community and Economic Development are the primary cause areas in which companies measured results. Its worth noting that most companies are relatively new to the impact-evaluation field, with fewer than five years of experience in formally tracking their results.

This edition of Giving in Numbers would not be possible without the tremendous sup-port of the talented staff at CECP, particularly Carmen Perez, Jinny Jeong, and Kate Crisalli, as well as The Conference Board, notably Alex Parkinson, Henry Silvert, Judit Torok, and Matteo Tonello. We would especially like to thank Newmans Own Foundation, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and The Travelers Companies, Inc. for their support of Giving in Numbers: 2014 Edition. Their commitment to transparency in the corporate social responsibility field is commendable and their support allows CECP to present this report free of charge on our website, cecp.co.

My personal hope is that companies, nonprofits, and academics use the research findings in this years report to inform strategic decisions about how to effect significant social change through corporate community partnerships. CECP welcomes feedback for how to make the annual release of Giving in Numbers as useful as possible, so please do not hesitate to contact us with your ideas!

Michael StroikReport AuthorManager, Research and AnalyticsCECP

preface

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION 3

Snapshot of Corporate Giving in 2013 42013 DATA SNAPSHOT 5

2013 BENCHMARKING TABLES 6

2013 QUARTILE BENCHMARKING 8

Corporate Giving Trends in Context 9CONSUMER CONFIDENCE AND BUSINESS PERFORMANCE 10GIVING AT THE COMPANY LEVEL 11TRENDS IN CASH AND NON-CASH GIVING 12REASONS FOR GIVING INCREASES AND DECREASES 13TRENDS AMONG AMERICAS LARGEST 100 COMPANIES 14PREDICTIONS FOR 2014 GIVING LEVELS 15

Grant Portfolio Breakdown 16A MIX OF FUNDING TYPES 17GIVING BY PROGRAM AREA 18INTERNATIONAL GIVING 20

Employee and Stakeholder Engagement 22EMPLOYEE VOLUNTEERISM 23PRO BONO SERVICE 25MATCHING GIFTS 26PHILANTHROPIC LEVERAGE 28

Administration Practices and Program Costs 29CORPORATE FOUNDATIONS 30BUDGET OVERSIGHT 31STAFFING TRENDS 32MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM COSTS 33PROGRAM EVALUATION 34PROGRAM EVALUATION CASE STUDIES 36

Tools for Benchmarking 37GETTING STARTED WITH BENCHMARKING 38YEAR-OVER-YEAR GIVING TEMPLATE 39

Appendices 402013 SURVEY RESPONDENT PROFILE 412013 DATA SNAPSHOT: PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRY 422013 DATA SNAPSHOT: FINANCIALS INDUSTRY 43RESPONDENT LISTING BY INDUSTRY 44FOUR-YEAR MATCHED-SET PROFILE 46CALCULATIONS AND DEFINITIONS 46ABOUT CECP RESEARCH AND MEASUREMENT: TRACKING TRENDS, GUIDING STRATEGIES 50

contents

Snapshot of Corporate Giving in 2013


2013 DATA SNAPSHOT

MAJORITY OF COMPANIES MATCH EMPLOYEE GIFTS

In 2013, 86% of companies matched employee contributions to qualifying nonprofit organizations. A majority of those com-panies (57%) strategically focused matching-gift programs on certain cause areas or strategic nonprofit partners. See pages 26 and 27.

Percentage of Companies Offering Matching Gifts by Program Type, 2013, N=184

POST-RECESSION CORPORATE GIVING INCREASES FOR MAJORITY OF COMPANIES

A majority of companies (64%) increased total contributions from 2010 to 2013. Many companies link giving budgets to business performanceamong companies giving at least 10% more since 2010, median revenues increased by 11% while revenues fell 3% for all other companies. Consumer Staples led the charge with 92% of companies giving more in 2013 than in 2010. See pages 10 and 11.

TOTAL GIVING TO COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EXPANDED IN RECENT YEARS

Aggregate giving to Community and Economic Development initiatives increased by 34% from 2010 to 2013, a higher growth rate than in any other program area. For all companies reporting program area breakdowns in 2013, Education (comprising both K-12 and Higher Education) was the most funded program, followed by Health and Social Services and Community and Economic Development. See pages 18 and 19.

Program Area Allocations, Average Percentages, 2013, N=181

COMPANIES STRIVE TO DO THE BEST

Based on strong demand from CECP companies for more information about the most charitable companies, Giving in Numbers this year identifies the minimum giving threshold to be included in the top quartile of companies giving to social causes. In 2013, a business had to give at least $53.8 million, or 1.95% of pre-tax profits, to be in the top 25% of all com-panies in this study. See page 8.

86%

66%

56%

54%

42%

Offering At Least One Type of Program*

Year-Round Matching-Gift Policy

Workplace Giving Campaign

Dollars for Doers Matching-Gift Policy

Disaster-Relief Matching-Gift Policy

Civic & Public Affairs 5%

Other 15%

Health & Social Services 27%

Community & Economic Development 14% Culture & Arts 5%

Disaster Relief 3%

Education, Higher 12%

Education, K-12 16%

Environment 3%

Median # of Hours Volunteered On Company Time (N=28) Average Percentage of Employees Volunteering At Least One Hour On Company Time (N=36)

2010 2011 2012 2013

61,938

31.97%33.53%

35.31%36.56%

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

40%

37%

34%

31%

28%

25%

55,62347,50645,211

*Based on full Giving in Numbers sample of 261 companies. Note: See page 48 for descriptions of each program area.


COMPANIES GIVE MORE TO INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL CAUSES

Among businesses supporting international end-recipients, the median international contribution increased by 57% from $3.11 million in 2010 to $4.88 million in 2013, driven by the majority of companies in the Industrials, Financials, and Consumer Staples industries increasing international contributions. See pages 20 and 21.

GIVING TYPES SHIFT FROM FOUNDATIONS TO CORPORATE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

Companies typically give both from a corporate foundation and directly from a corporate account. While 79% of companies operate a corporate foundation, growth in cash contributions from 2010 to 2013 came predominantly from Corporate Community Affairs (CCA) budgets. The average CCA cash contribution increased by 28% from 2010 to 2013, whereas foundation cash gifts increased by only 2%. See pages 17 and 31.

CORPORATE GIVING OFFICERS RECOGNIZE VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS AS MOST ENGAGING

Corporate giving professionals attending the CECP Summit in May 2014 ranked Volunteer Time Off as the most effective socially motivated tactic for increasing employee satisfaction with their company. Employees are taking notice: the median number of hours volunteered on company time increased by 37% from 2010 to 2013. See pages 23 and 24.

2013 BENCHMARKING TABLES


INDUSTRY

Companies in the same industry often share philanthropic goals, have overlapping stakeholders, and face similar business challenges.

PRE-TAX PROFIT

While revenue provides a clear expression of a companys financial size, it is pre-tax profit that indicates the level of discretionary funds that can be reinvested into the business. However, an individual companys pre-tax profit can change substantially from one year to the next, which complicates year-over-year comparisons. While expenses such as rising oil prices affect all peer companies, other factors affect single companies, such as the closure of an international office or the renegotiation of a vendor contract.

Note: Companies with incomplete data for profit, revenue, and/or employee size are included in the applicable calculations to determine the All Companies data of each benchmarking table, but not in the subsequent rows of each benchmarking table.

Median Total

Giving (in Millions)

Median Total

Giving as a % of Revenue

Median Total Cash


Median Total

Giving as a % of Pre-Tax Profit

Median Total Cash


Median Matching

Gifts as a % of

Total Cash Giving

Median Total

Giving per

Employee

All Companies N=261 $18.46 0.13% 0.09% 1.01% 0.76% 12.32% $644

Fortune 100 Companies n=62 $58.78 0.10% 0.07% 0.81% 0.70% 15.52% $558

Communications n=11 $30.61 0.07% 0.05% 1.10% 0.43% 4.94% $429

Consumer Discretionary n=34 $14.93 0.09% 0.07% 1.25% 0.80% 12.72% $232

Consumer Staples n=25 $39.22 0.15% 0.08% 1.12% 0.63% 8.93% $608

Energy n=14 $34.49 0.12% 0.09% 0.76% 0.76% 11.88% $2,912

Financials n=55 $15.41 0.14% 0.14% 0.96% 0.95% 12.11% $941

Health Care n=26 $39.02 0.23% 0.08% 1.58% 0.70% 13.30% $681

Industrials n=26 $13.40 0.08% 0.07% 0.76% 0.69% 14.39% $244

Materials n=18 $9.25 0.07% 0.07% 0.98% 0.80% 14.19% $305

Technology n=31 $13.50 0.19% 0.11% 1.06% 0.59% 17.31% $666

Utilities n=21 $10.81 0.14% 0.13% 1.23% 1.16% 7.80% $1,092

Median Total


Median Total


Median Total Cash


Median Total


Median Total Cash


Median Matching

Gifts as a % of

Total Cash Giving

Median Total

Giving per

Employee

All Companies N=261 $18.46 0.13% 0.09% 1.01% 0.76% 12.32% $644


Pre-Tax Profit > $10 bn n=26 $182.20 0.21% 0.14% 0.86% 0.73% 11.58% $1,037

$5 bn < Pre-Tax Profit $10 bn n=32 $56.70 0.13% 0.09% 0.80% 0.57% 13.52% $665





Pre-Tax Profit $0 n=13 $11.13 0.09% 0.07% NA NA 16.59% $589

2013 BENCHMARKING TABLES CONTINUED


REVENUE

While it is tempting to assume that companies with familiar logos are revenue giants, this is not always the case. Many well-known companies, particularly those with global brands, may generate less revenue than business-to-business companies that do not invest in building awareness among consumers. Even companies within the same industry and with similar brand recog-nition may have very different revenue levels.

EMPLOYEES

Many philanthropic strategies are designed to enhance corporate culture and provide opportunities for employees to become involved. However, successfully putting theory into practice depends largely on the number of employees at a company and the types of employees (e.g., hourly vs. salary) engaged in community programs.

Note: Companies with incomplete data for profit, revenue, and/or employee size are included in the applicable calculations to determine the All Companies data of each benchmarking table, but not in the subsequent rows of each benchmarking table.

Median Total


Median Total


Median Total Cash


Median Total


Median Total Cash


Median Matching

Gifts as a % of

Total Cash Giving

Median Total

Giving per

Employee

All Companies N=261 $18.46 0.13% 0.09% 1.01% 0.76% 12.32% $644


Revenue > $100 bn n=15 $63.85 0.05% 0.05% 0.70% 0.44% 11.95% $494

$50 bn < Revenue $100 bn n=28 $95.84 0.12% 0.08% 1.06% 0.73% 18.42% $671

$25 bn < Revenue $50 bn n=43 $42.63 0.13% 0.09% 1.19% 0.09% 12.24% $665

$15 bn < Revenue $25 bn n=38 $30.43 0.14% 0.13% 0.97% 0.83% 9.03% $679

$10 bn < Revenue $15 bn n=35 $11.26 0.10% 0.09% 0.72% 0.65% 9.97% $601

$5 bn < Revenue $10 bn n=45 $8.87 0.12% 0.09% 1.12% 0.86% 13.60% $763

Revenue $5 bn n=37 $4.86 0.15% 0.11% 1.43% 1.01% 11.42% $592

Median Total


Median Total


Median Total Cash


Median Total


Median Total Cash


Median Matching

Gifts as a % of

Total Cash Giving

Median Total

Giving per

Employee

All Companies N=261 $18.46 0.13% 0.09% 1.01% 0.76% 12.32% $644


Employees > 100,0000 n=51 $63.85 0.12% 0.08% 1.04% 0.84% 14.48% $361

50,001 Employees 100,000 n=39 $46.64 0.15% 0.12% 1.07% 0.62% 10.33% $681

30,001 Employees 50,000 n=40 $19.85 0.08% 0.07% 0.70% 0.54% 13.22% $586

20,001 Employees 30,000 n=17 $23.39 0.22% 0.15% 1.42% 1.15% 10.41% $1,105

10,000 Employees 20,000 n=45 $9.77 0.12% 0.11% 0.99% 0.92% 10.05% $664

Employees < 10,000 n=56 $5.52 0.11% 0.08% 0.99% 0.75% 11.88% $1,111


Identifying the Most Generous Companies

CECP, in association with The Conference Board, has historically benchmarked corporate giving and employee engagement programs by identifying medians or averages and allowing companies to judge how their company performance compares.

This year, based on demand from companies, we identified quartiles for the most relevant giving metrics. This table

displays the minimum level of giving required to be among the top 25% of companies for each giving metric. The top quartile threshold is the value below which three-quarters of the data lie when ranked in ascending order. The bottom quartile threshold is the value below which one-quarter of the data lie when ranked in ascending order.

Industry Quartile Comparisons

The minimum total giving amount required for a company to be in its industrys top quartile is:

ii Communications (n=11): $79.0 million

ii Consumer Discretionary (n=34): $26.3 million

ii Consumer Staples (n=25): $107.9 million

ii Energy (n=14): $190.1 million

ii Financials (n=55): $52.2 million

ii Health Care, Non-Pharmaceutical (n=19): $50.9 million

ii Health Care, Pharmaceutical (n=7): $1.4 billion

ii Industrials (n=26): $33.9 million

ii Materials (n=18): $33.7 million

ii Technology (n=31): $55.6 million

ii Utilities (n=21): $19.4 million

Pharmaceutical companies accounted for approximately $7.5 billion in total product donations in 2013, driving the quartile threshold higher than all other industries. (See page 42 for details on Pharmaceutical contributions.)

Regional Cash Quartile Benchmarking

Companies based outside of the United States were required to make the highest cash contributions to earn a spot in the top quartile:

ii International Companies (n=21): $92.9 million

ii U.S. Midwest-Based Companies (n=61): $34.7 million

ii U.S. Northeast-Based Companies (n=76): $33.7 million

ii U.S. South-Based Companies (n=60): $32.5 million

ii U.S. West-Based Companies (n=43): $22.0 million

Among U.S. states with a minimum of eight companies par-ticipating in the Giving in Numbers Survey, the minimum cash contributions required to be in the top quartile in 2013 were:

Total Giving (N=261)

Cash Giving (N=261)

Total Giving as a % of Revenue (N=241)

Total Giving as a % of Pre-Tax Profit (N=224)

Top 25% (75th Percentile) $53.8 Million $35.5 Million 0.22% 1.95%

Bottom 25% (25th Percentile) $7.5 Million $5.5 Million 0.06% 0.60%

State Top Quartile

MN (n=14) $63.6 Million

CA (n=32) $54.9 Million

IL (n=11) $46.2 Million

NJ (n=9) $42.6 Million

NY (n=39) $40.2 Million

VA (n=9) $38.1 Million

TX (n=17) $28.8 Million

CT (n=11) $25.3 Million

2013 QUARTILE BENCHMARKING


Post-Recession Corporate Giving Increases for Majority of Companies

Median revenues increased in eight of ten industries from 2010 to 2013 and a major-ity of companies increased both total contributions (64% of companies) and giving as a percentage of revenue (66% of companies). Total contributions rose year-over-year through-out the period, with the largest increases seen in 2011 and the smallest increases in 2013. See pages 10 and 11.

In-Kind Gifts Drive Largest Giving Increases from 2012 to 2013

Non-cash offerings of prod-ucts or Pro Bono Services were the main driver of large increases (10%+) in total giv-ing. Many of Americas largest companies gave less in 2013 than in the prior year due to very large, one-time contri-butions to Superstorm Sandy recovery efforts in 2012. See pages 12 and 13.

Giving Expected to Increase Modestly in 2014

A majority of companies based in the American Northeast expect giving to increase from 2013 to 2014, while compa-nies in each of the other U.S. Census Bureau regions were less confident. Despite recent gains in non-cash contribu-tions, more companies expect giving increases to be driven by direct corporate or foundation cash contributions in 2014. See page 15.

Corporate Giving Trends in ContextKEY FINDINGS IN THIS SECTION:


CONSUMER CONFIDENCE

The Conference Board publishes the Consumer Confidence Index each month as a barometer of the health of the U.S. economy from the perspective of the consumer. The Index assesses not only perceptions of current conditions but also expectations for the subsequent six months and is widely regarded as a lead-ing indicator of the U.S. economy.

As shown in Figure 1, consumer confi-dence has been on an upward trend since early 2009, after downward trends in 2000-2003 (instigated by the 2001 recession, the Western energy crisis, and the September 11th tragedy) as well as in 2007-2009 (instigated by the Great Recession). Consumer confidence increased as Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment rates dropped in each year since the peak of 9.6% in 2010. According to Lynn Franco, Director of Economic Indicators and Surveys at The Conference Board, events like the debt-ceiling crisis, fiscal cliff, and government shutdown had a temporary negative impact on consumer confidence in recent years, but overall confidence in the U.S. economy is increasing.

CEO CONFIDENCE AND BUSINESS PERFORMANCE

The Conference Board and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Measure of CEO Confidence, a quarterly measure, indicates that CEOs are generally as optimistic as consumers about the state of the economy.

This years Giving in Numbers Survey found that eight out of ten industries increased median revenues from 2010 to 2013. This improvement in business performance could help to explain the buoyant projections among CEOs:

CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS AND BUSINESS PERFORMANCE

Companies often link business and economic performance to corporate giving budgets. Giving in Numbers: 2014 Edition uses a matched set of 144 companies from 2010 to 2013 to examine trends in corporate giving and employee engagement since the end of the Great Recession. A majority of companies increased community contribu-tions since 2010, driven by growth in both cash and in-kind contributions. Consumer Staples companies led the charge as 92% of them increased giving from 2010 to 2013:

CONSUMER CONFIDENCE AND BUSINESS PERFORMANCE

August2014

FIGURE 1

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index, 2000 to mid-2014

Consumer Confidence Index

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

160

140 _

120 _

100 _

80 _

60 _

40 _

20 _

0

Sources: The Conference Board, Nielsen, TNS

(Index, 1985=100)

Industry

Percentage Change

in Median Revenues

from 2010 to 2013

Communications, n=6 +13%

Consumer Discretionary, n=15 +2%

Consumer Staples, n=12 +14%

Energy, n=8 -19%

Financials, n=32 +3%

Health Care, n=21 +5%

Industrials, n=11 +19%

Materials, n=6 +5%

Technology, n=18 +26%

Utilities, n=9 -2%

Industry

Percentage of Companies

Increasing Giving

from 2010 to 2013

Consumer Staples, n=12 92%

Industrials, n=11 73%

Health Care, n=21 71%

Materials, n=6 67%

Energy, n=8 63%

Financials, n=35 63%

Technology, n=19 58%

Consumer Discretionary, n=17 53%

Communications, n=6 50%

Utilities, n=9 44%

FIGURE 2

Distribution of Companies by Changes in Total Giving Between 2010 and 2013, Inflation-Adjusted, Matched-Set Data

10% 10% 10%

6%

12%

17%

Decreased by more than

25%

Decreased Between

10% and 25%

Decreased Between

2% and 10%

Flat Increased Between

2% and 10%

Increased Between

10% and 25%

Increased by more than

25%

N=144

35%


Total Giving Decreased for 30% of Companies from 2010 to 2013

Total Giving Increased for 64% of Companies from 2010 to 2013


GIVING TRENDS FROM 2010 TO 2013

A majority (64%) of companies increased corporate contributions to 501(c)(3) organizations, or the international equiva-lent, from 2010 to 2013 (N=144). As illustrated in Figure 2, more than a third of companies increased contributions by 25% or more during this period. These companies grew their total in-kind gifts (predominantly product donations and Pro Bono Services) by 66% and cash gifts by 25% (n=50).

Giving and business performance increased together; profits increased for 59% of companies that gave 10% or more since 2010 (n=72). Median revenues among that same group increased by 11% and decreased by 3% for all other companies (n=66). Companies with increasing contributions budgets often align their giving with business priorities, so its unsurprising to see a trend toward companies funding social causes from corporate accounts, rather than founda-tions. (See page 17 for details on giving trends by type of contribution.)

YEAR-BY-YEAR ANALYSIS

Among companies giving at least 10% more in 2013 than 2010, median total giving increased in each year (n=75):

For all other companies, median total giving decreased each year (n=69):

The year 2013 saw the largest marginal change by companies that decreased giving and the smallest marginal change by companies that increased giving. This indicates that 2013 was a relatively slow year for corporate philanthropy.

NORMALIZED GIVING CHANGES

Median giving as a percentage of revenue steadily increased from 2010 to 2013 (n=138):

This upward trend indicates that the expansion of community support out-paced business growth since the end of the Great Recession. CECP and The Conference Board are encouraged by the fact that 66% of companies increased giving as a percentage of revenue from 2010 to 2013 (n=138), exemplifying that corporate community engagement is widely considered a sound business strat-egy among the worlds largest companies. Giving as a percentage of pre-tax profit increased slightly from 1.03% in 2010 to 1.04% in 2013 (n=122).

GIVING AT THE COMPANY LEVEL

Median Giving

% Change in Median Giving

2010 $22.1 Million

2011 $26.8 Million +21%

2012 $31.3 Million +17%

2013 $33.1 Million +6%

Median Giving

% Change in Median Giving

2010 $26.6 Million

2011 $25.4 Million -5%

2012 $25.2 Million -1%

2013 $23.8 Million -6%

Median Giving as a % of Revenue

2010 0.125%

2011 0.134%

2012 0.138%

2013 0.141%


COMPONENTS OF TOTAL GIVING

The Giving in Numbers Survey collects total contributions in three giving types:

ii Direct Cash includes cash giving from corporate headquarters or regional offices;

ii Foundation Cash includes cash giving from the corporate foundation; and

ii Non-Cash includes product donations, Pro Bono Service, and other non-cash contributions (e.g., office equipment) assessed at Fair Market Value.

A balanced giving budget incorporat-ing cash and in-kind contributions helps companies form meaningful community partnerships. Nonprofits rely on consistent cash funding to pay overhead costs and expand important services, so cash contri-butions are always in high demand. At the same time, products and professional ser-vices are also valuable to nonprofit part-ners. Companies often have the expertise and resources necessary to provide such important in-kind resources at scale.

RISE IN AGGREGATE GIVING

Among companies responding to the Giving in Numbers Survey each year from 2010 to 2013, aggregate total giving (i.e., the sum of all giving in the sample) rose by 15% to $17.55 billion in 2013 (N=144):

Non-cash contributions accounted for more than 90% ($2.11 billion) of the aggregate giving increase between 2010 and 2013. Of all companies responding to the Giving in Numbers Survey, 62% reported non-cash contributions (N=261), up from 58% from the 2010 sample (N=185).

NOTES ON NON-CASH CONTRIBUTIONS

While non-cash contributions account for the majority of giving growth in the past decade, approximately a quarter of companies making these gifts in 2013 did not provide in-kind contributions in each year of the matched set (2010 to 2013). Among companies that did provide a consistent flow of non-cash contributions in this period, the median in-kind donation decreased by 16% from $8.42 million in 2010 to $7.04 million in 2013 (N=70).

This indicates that the total growth in non-cash contributions is driven in part by large, one-time contributions rather than by sustained growth by the same compa-nies, year-over-year. While non-cash gifts are often strategically directed to specific causes, sometimes companies simply have too much product on-hand and wish to direct it in a socially responsible manner. Retailers and product manufacturers continually seek to refine their operations, which may result in less excess product available for donation in subsequent years.

TRENDS IN CASH AND NON-CASH GIVING

FIGURE 3

Percentage Change by Funding Type for Companies with Increased and Decreased Giving Between 2010 and 2013, Inflation-Adjusted

Companies that Decreased Giving from 2010 to 2013 (n=43)

Companies that Increased Giving from 2010 to 2013 (n=92)

Direct Cash Foundation Cash Non-Cash

-24%

-14%

-22%

23%

4%

63%

Aggregate Cash

Giving (Billions)

Aggregate Non-Cash

Giving (Billions)

Total Aggregate

Giving (Billions)

2010 $5.96 $9.26 $15.22

2011 $6.09 $10.21 $16.30

2012 $5.97 $11.33 $17.30

2013 $6.18 $11.37 $17.55


REASONS FOR INCREASED GIVING

The most common reasons for companies giving significantly more (10%+) in 2013 than in 2012 included:

ii INCREASED IN-KIND GIVING, INCLUDING PRO BONO SERVICES (See pages 12 and 25.)

ii MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS

The most common reasons for companies giving slightly more (between 2% and 10%) in 2013 than in 2012 included:

ii IMPROVED BUSINESS PERFORMANCE (See page 10.)

ii INCREASED PARTICIPATION IN MATCHING-GIFT PROGRAMS (See pages 26 and 27.)

ii MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS

REASONS FOR DECREASED GIVING

The most common reasons for companies giving slightly less (between 2% and 10%) in 2013 than in 2012 included:

ii ABNORMALLY HIGH GIVING LEVELS IN 2012OFTEN IN SUPPORT OF SUPERSTORM SANDY

ii STRATEGICALLY TRANSITIONING AWAY FROM CAUSE AREAS (See page 19.)

The most common reasons for companies giving significantly less (10%+) in 2013 than in 2012 included:

ii COMPANY-WIDE COST REDUCTIONS

ii STRATEGICALLY TRANSITIONING AWAY FROM CAUSE AREAS (See page 19.)

ii CORPORATE DIVESTITURES

INSIGHTS FROM SURVEY RESPONDENTS

Total giving increased primarily due to product donations, which increased from 2012 to 2013

Our company closed stores, which resulted in excess inventory available for donation

Non-cash giving increased because of new Pro Bono Services delivered in 2013

The biggest jump was related to business growth (and came from our business units)

The increase in giving was due to the successful results of the company during the previous three years, as our budget is driven by the rolling three-year EBIT

A major effort to promote employee participation in the matching-gift program also led to increases in the corporate match amounts

INSIGHTS FROM SURVEY RESPONDENTS

The amount of non-cash donations was unusually high in 2012, due to our in-kind support for Hurricane Sandy relief

Transitioning to strategic philanthropic initiatives

A decrease in 2013 giving primarily stems from an unforeseen increase in giving in 2012 that was related to natural disasters and tragic events...such as: Hurricane Sandy, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, etc.

Overall, giving decreased due to significant expense reductions required by the company in the second half of the year (e.g., job and budget reductions)

Budgets for all areas of the company have been reduced. We anticipate that as the company becomes more prof-itable our giving is likely to increase


FORTUNE MAGAZINES TOP 100 SURVEY RESPONDENTS

Each year, Fortune Magazine ranks Americas 500 largest companies accord-ing to revenue. This section of Giving in Numbers identifies trends among 62 of the largest 100 companies (F100) that responded to the survey, allowing us to examine how Americas biggest corpora-tions give back to their communities.

The revenue threshold for the 2013 F100 ranking was $31.2 billion, approximately 3% higher than the 2012 cutoff:

FORTUNE 100 CONTRIBUTIONS FALL FROM 2012 TO 2013

For the first time in the four-year matched set (2010-2013), median total giving decreased: from $66.29 million in 2012 to $62.94 million in 2013 (N=52). Several F100 companies have begun better align-ing their corporate giving focus with their business strategy, resulting in a transition away from unaligned partnerships. Several survey respondents cited this as a reason for the decrease in giving.

Since 2010, total F100 giving to Community and Economic Development increased by 33% and giving to Higher Education increased by 26%. Giving from these same companies to Culture and Arts decreased by 27% over the same period (N=31).

Many F100 companies noted that the 2012 giving spike shown in Figure 4 was an anomaly, driven by heavy contributions to the Superstorm Sandy recovery. This spike was particularly acute for companies with employees in the New York and New Jersey region.

FORTUNE 100 CASH CONTRIBUTIONS

As shown in Figure 4, F100 companies often give more than smaller companiesbut the largest companies are not always the most generous. Among all companies, 52% of F100 companies were featured in the top quartile for total giving, while 61% were in the top quartile for cash giving. The median cash contribution for F100 companies was $47.7 million in 2013 (n=62), compared to $10.2 million for all other companies (n=199), indicating that the largest companies often provide the most cash.

To be among the top quartile of F100 companies for cash contributions in 2013, a company had to give $102.2 million. A majority (65%) of F100 companies have increased cash contributions since 2010, while 10% gave the same amount and 25% decreased their cash contributions (N=52).

TRENDS AMONG AMERICAS LARGEST 100 COMPANIES

FIGURE 4

Median Total Giving for Fortune 100 Companies and All Other Companies, Inflation-Adjusted, Matched-Set Data

Fortune 100 Median Giving (N=52) All Other Companies Median Giving (N=92)

N=144 2010 2011 2012 2013

$60.01 $61.86$66.29

$62.94

$19.90$17.36 $17.62 $16.86

$ M

illions

Median Profile Statistics of F100 Companies Participating in the Giving in

Numbers Survey (N=62)

Revenue $56.4 Billion

Pre-Tax Profit $6.7 Billion

Number of Employees 95,120


0.10%


0.81%

Cash Giving as a % of Pre-Tax Profit

0.70%


NEAR-TERM EXPECTATIONS

The Giving in Numbers Survey asked respondents to forecast the expected percentage change of their companys total contributions from 2013 to 2014. Respondents could choose from seven ranges, as shown in Figure 5 (note that analysis omitted respondents who selected Not able to estimate at this time).

Nearly half the respondents expect no change in 2014 giving levels while 38% of companies expect giving to increase. Though non-cash giving has driven sig-nificant increases in aggregate contribu-tions in recent years, more companies expect an increase in cash gifts (direct corporate and foundation cash) in 2014 than in non-cash contributions. Two cause areas, Higher Education and Health and Social Services, could have a strong year in 2014, based on the fact that these two areas were supported more in 2013 by companies that expect to increase their giving than by companies that expect to decrease their giving.

ASSESSING WHERE GIVING WILL INCREASE

At the CECP Summit in May 2014, the majority of giving professionals indicated that more than 20% of their com-panys giving went to recipients in their headquarters state. The percentage of companies headquartered in each U.S. Census Bureau region expecting giving to increase in 2014 are:

ii Northeast: 52% (n=44)

ii South: 38% (n=29)

ii Midwest: 25% (n=36)

ii West: 25% (n=16)

Consumer Discretionary firms were the most optimistic about future giving, with 62% of companies expecting an increase in 2014 (n=13). Industrials was the next most optimistic industry, with 53% (n=19). Utilities firms were the least optimistic, with only 18% of companies expecting giving to increase in 2014.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

As shown earlier in this section, con-sumer and CEO confidence have grown consistently since the low of the Great Recession, signaling an improving eco-nomic outlook. The Giving in Numbers data show that giving budgets tend to increase with improved business per-formance, so if increases in consumer and CEO confidence persist, its likely that corporate giving will continue and perhaps also increase as well.

CEOs recognize the important role that businesses play in solving complex social problems. At CECPs Board of Boards roundtable in February 2014, attending CEOs identified companies and consum-ers as the top two groups that will lead progress toward long-term societal improvement (N=39). It is therefore no surprise that a majority of companies are now measuring (or seeking to measure) the societal outcomes of their grantmak-ing. See page 34.

PREDICTIONS FOR 2014 GIVING LEVELS

FIGURE 5

Percentage of Companies Predicting How 2014 Total Giving Will Compare to 2013 Levels

1%

6% 6%

48%

28%

8%

2%

Decrease by more than 25%

Decrease 11% to 25%

Decrease 2% to 10%

No change expected

Increase 2% to 10%

Increase 11% to 25%

Increase by more than 25%

N=130


Corporate Cash Grows

Between 2010 and 2013, companies increased cash giving directly from corporate accounts while the proportion of cash giving from corporate founda-tions declined. Companies have started to align giving with busi-ness priorities, and directing cash contributions through corporate giving budgets often provides greater flexibility for companies to decide which organizations they want to support to meet their grantmaking goals. See page 17.

Service Companies Increase Non-Cash Giving

From 2010 to 2013, Service companies average non-cash giving as a percentage of total giving increased from 14.95% to 17.74% (n=82). For Manufacturing companies, it decreased from 29.12% to 25.47% (n=62). See page 17.

Education is Top Program Area

Educational organizations received the highest average proportion of funding from corporations in 2013, edging out Health and Social Services and Community and Economic Development (N=181). See page 18.

Community and Economic Development Support Grows

As companies prioritized cause areas through more focused grantmaking, support of Community and Economic Development increased dramat-ically from 2010 to 2013, while support of Culture and Arts declined during the same period. See page 19.

International Giving Grows

Among companies supporting international end-recipients, the median international contribu-tion increased by 57% from 2010 ($3.11 million) to 2013 ($4.88 million). Manufacturing companies drove this increase, in particular by giving more to environmental causes in their international locations. See page 21.

Grant Portfolio BreakdownKEY FINDINGS IN THIS SECTION:


TYPES OF CORPORATE GIVING

Figure 6 shows the average giving budget breakdown by industry. All recipients of corporate giving in the Giving in Numbers Survey must be 501(c)(3) organizations or an international equivalent. The survey recognizes three types of giving:

ii Direct Cash: Cash giving from corpo-rate headquarters or regional offices.

ii Foundation Cash: Cash contributions from the corporate foundation. Only funds originating from the corporation, through an endowment or pass-through, are included.

ii Non-Cash: Product donations, Pro Bono Service, and other non-cash contributions (e.g., office equipment) assessed at Fair Market Value.

Total giving figures do not include the value of employee volunteerism, man-agement and program costs, or funds contributed by other companies, indi-viduals, or foundations.

CASH GIVING TRENDS

The table below shows the 2010-2013 average percentages, by funding type, of the matched set (N=144):

Cash contributions shifted from founda-tions to corporate budgets. This shift is reflective of the broader industry trend of companies aligning giving practices with corporate strategies. Directing contribu-tions from the corporate budget gives companies more flexibility as to which organizations and causes they fund, as the money is not subject to the self-dealing regulations that foundations face. Non-cash contributions also come from the corporate account. (See page 31 for more information on budget sources.)

NON-CASH GIVING AMONG SERVICE COMPANIES

Companies deploy valuable non-cash resources and engage employees in ways private foundations or individual donors cannot. In 2013, 64% of all companies gave at least one in-kind gift, the highest percentage of companies since 2009.

As shown in Figure 6, Service compa-nies gave nearly as much in non-cash contributions, relative to total giving, as Manufacturing companies. From 2010 to 2013, Service companies average non-cash giving as a percentage of total giving increased from 14.95% to 17.74% (n=82), while for Manufacturing compa-nies it decreased from 29.12% to 25.47% (n=62). Retailers increasing product dona-tions and professional service companies increasing Pro Bono Services drove non-cash growth in the Service sector.

A MIX OF FUNDING TYPES

Direct Cash Foundation Cash Non-Cash

FIGURE 6

Industry Breakdown of Total Giving by Funding Type, 2013, Average Percentages

19%33%48%

20%30%50%

18%36%46%

45%24%31%

27%26%47%

35%23%42%

18%8%74%

4%49%47%

44%23%33%

2%45%53%

6%38%56%

26%33%41%

4%31%65%

All Companies N=261

Manufacturing n=111

Service n=150

Communications n=11

Consumer Discretionary n=34

Consumer Staples n=25

Energy n=14

Financials n=55

Health Care n=26

Industrials n=26

Materials n=18

Technology n=31

Utilities n=21

Direct Cash

Foundation Cash

Non- Cash

2010 45.51% 33.44% 21.05%

2011 45.98% 32.98% 21.04%

2012 46.59% 32.65% 20.76%

2013 47.32% 31.61% 21.07%


IDENTIFYING THE MOST POPULAR CAUSE AREAS

A companys giving budget usually funds a range of cause areas. Figure 7 shows that companies on average direct the highest proportion of their grants (28%) to Education (K-12 and Higher), followed closely by Health and Social Services (27%).

Large in-kind gifts from pharmaceuti-cal companies and grocers drove $6.4 billion (or 38% of all giving) in aggregate total gifts to Health and Social Services organizations, the highest total any cause area received.

In 2013, 96% of companies supported Educational causes and 91% supported Health and Social Services. Culture and Arts ranked third, with 83% of companies directing funds that waya surprising statistic given that the average company budget gave only 5% to arts initiatives. This indicates that many companies sup-port the arts with small dollar amounts.

CASH-GIVING COMPARISONS

Educational and Health and Social Services causes received the largest median cash contributions in 2013:

ii Total Education (n=173): $3.4 million

ii Health and Social Services (n=164): $3.0 million

ii Community and Economic Development (n=143): $1.8 million

ii Culture and Arts (n=151): $0.61 million

ii Civic and Public Affairs (n=121): $0.60 million

ii Environment (n=127): $0.37 million

ii Disaster Relief (n=143): $0.22 million

To be among the top quartile of companies that give cash to Educational causes in 2013, a company had to give a minimum of $10.1 million to these programs (n=173).

TOP CASH FUNDERS BY DOLLAR VALUE

The industries providing the highest 2013 median cash amount for each program area are shown below (sample sizes cor-relate to those stated in Figure 7):

Note that the average percentages in Figure 7 are for total giving to that cause area, including in-kind contributions.

GIVING BY PROGRAM AREA

FIGURE 7

Civic &

Public Affairs

Com

munity &

Econom

ic

Develop

ment

Culture & Arts

Disaster Relief

Education:

Higher

Education:

K-12

Environm

ent

Health &

Social Services

Other

All Companies N=181 5% 14% 5% 3% 12% 16% 3% 27% 15%

Communications n=8 5% 9% 4% 2% 6% 28% 8% 20% 18%

Consumer Discretionary n=24 7% 10% 4% 5% 10% 16% 2% 27% 19%

Consumer Staples n=19 3% 26% 3% 1% 8% 6% 4% 38% 11%

Energy n=10 4% 17% 4% 2% 23% 13% 5% 14% 18%

Financials n=39 5% 23% 8% 3% 9% 19% 1% 15% 17%

Health Care n=18 3% 5% 2% 4% 8% 3% 0% 72% 3%

Industrials n=20 4% 9% 5% 3% 20% 17% 3% 28% 11%

Materials n=11 2% 11% 7% 1% 14% 16% 7% 25% 17%

Technology n=16 2% 4% 4% 2% 17% 34% 2% 11% 24%

Utilities n=16 7% 16% 9% 1% 14% 12% 9% 20% 12%

Program Area Allocations by Industry, 2013, Average Percentages

Note: Relative to industry peers, the industry providing the highest percentage of giving to a particular program area is highlighted.

Program Area

Industry / Highest Median Dollar Amount

Civic & Public Affairs

Energy / $0.76 Million

Community & Economic Development

Financials / $3.79 Million

Culture & Arts


Disaster Relief


Education: Higher

Industrials / $3.21 Million

Education: K-12

Materials / $3.21 Million

EnvironmentEnergy /

$2.54 Million

Health & Social Services

Health Care / $7.47 Million


SHARPER FOCUS ON STRATEGIC GRANTMAKING

For the last several years, companies around the globe have become more stra-tegic in their grantmaking, often aligning giving and employee engagement pro-grams with long-term business strategies.

The data show that individual grants are getting larger (the median grant size increased by 43% from 2010 to 2013, n=38), and corporate grantmakers are working with fewer nonprofit organiza-tions (the median number of nonprofit partnerships per grantmaker fell 21% from 2010 to 2013, n=38). This analysis excluded matching-gift grant recipients.

Measuring social outcomes is an increas-ingly important practice in corporate philanthropy. Many corporate funders believe that focusing efforts to specific cause areas will result in deeper impact.

REBALANCING GIVING IN THE NONPROFIT SECTOR

As companies focus their grantmaking, they tend to prioritize cause areas. The Great Recession of 2008 and 2009 left corporate grantmakers to wonder how they are best equipped to help their com-munities recover, which is good for society and for businesses. Perhaps unsurprisingly, total support of Economic and Community Development organizations has increased by 34% since the Great Recession, as many of these programs support marginalized communities through economic empower-ment programs both in the U.S. and abroad. Since 2010, funding for this program area has grown more than any other.

As one program area thrives, another declines, as evidenced by the 20% decrease in total giving to Culture and Arts from 2010 to 2013 (foundation cash giving declined 25%), although the steep year-over-year declines subsided between 2012 and 2013 (N=80).

CASH CHANGES BY PROGRAM AREA

Cash contributions are always in high demand in the nonprofit community; aggregate cash giving increased by 3.7% from 2010 to 2013. However, program areas were affected in different ways (N=80):

ii Community and Economic Development: +29.44%

ii Other: +20.07%

ii Education, Higher: +12.09%

ii Environment: +5.73%

ii Health and Social Services: -2.58%

ii Civic and Public Affairs: -3.70%

ii Education, K-12: -5.28%

ii Disaster Relief: -11.83%

ii Culture and Arts: -19.18%

Growth in Other contributions was driven in part by expanding matching-gift programs. The small declines in Health and Social Services, Civic and Public Affairs, and K-12 Education were offset by increases in non-cash giving.

GIVING BY PROGRAM AREA CONTINUED

FIGURE 8

Recipient Organizations per Contributions FTE and Grant Size, 2010-2013, Medians, Inflation-Adjusted

# of Recipients per FTE Grant Size

63

$31,792 $31,459

$34,606

$45,604

52

66

50

$57,000

$47,000

$37,000

$27,000

$17,000

80

70

60

50

40

30

2010 2011 2012 2013


ALLOCATIONS BY INDUSTRY

In the Giving in Numbers Survey, inter-national giving refers to contributions made to end-recipients in all countries outside of the companys domestic or headquarters country.

The figures below show the average per-centage of total giving that each industry directed internationally (among companies that made international contributions):

ii All Companies (N=113): 22%

ii Energy (n=7): 40%

ii Consumer Staples (n=11): 36%

ii Industrials (n=13): 23%

ii Materials (n=10): 22%

ii Communications (n=7): 21%

ii Technology (n=16): 20%

ii Financials (n=24): 20%

ii Health Care (n=10): 19%

ii Consumer Discretionary (n=12): 14%

Energy companies typically have larger operations in global markets than other companies do, which explains why they would dedicate a higher average amount to international end-recipients than would other industries.

REGIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS

In 2013, 92% of responding compa-nies were based in the United States (N=261). Figure 9 details the regional breakdown of international contributions from U.S.-based companies to end-recipients outside of North America. The geographic regions are defined on pages 47 and 48. International contributions include grants to international nonprofits and domestic nonprofits that sup-port international affairs. According to Giving USA Foundations Giving USA: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2013 (2014), the rate at which cor-porations have increased gifts directly to international nonprofits in recent years is higher than the rate at which theyve increased gifts to U.S.-based nonprofits supporting international affairs.

Companies tend to give where they do business or where they have signifi-cant operations. Approximately 79% of Manufacturing companies earned at least 20% of their revenues abroad (n=34), compared with 41% of Service companies (n=46).

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM TYPE

The figures in the table below show the average breakdown by program area of international giving portfolios (N=95):

Manufacturers tend to support environ-mental causes through grantmaking at a higher rate abroad than in their home market. Among Manufacturers that provided program-type breakdowns for overall giving and international giving, on average 14.45% of international giving budgets supported environmental causes, compared with 6.74% of overall budgets (N=30).

INTERNATIONAL GIVING

Global (Not region-specific) Asia & the Pacific Europe Latin America & the Caribbean

i Middle East & Africa Breakdown Unavailable

FIGURE 9

Average Percentage Regional Breakdown of Total Giving for Companies Headquartered in the United States, 2013

Manufacturing n=48

Service n=49 13%

10% 33% 16% 15% 5%21%

21% 22% 20% 20%4%

Average International Program Area Breakdown

Civic & Public Affairs 3%

Community & Economic Development

17%

Culture & Arts 4%

Disaster Relief 12%

Education: Higher 8%

Education: K-12 18%

Environment 6%

Health & Social Services 20%

Other 12%


YEAR-OVER-YEAR CHANGES

Among companies that gave internation-ally in 2013, the median international con-tribution increased from $3.11 million in 2010 to $4.88 million in 2013, as shown in Figure 10. Manufacturing companies drove this trend, increasing average inter-national giving as a percentage of total giving from 20.46% in 2010 to 22.21% in 2013 (n=32).

Industrials, Financials, and Consumer Staples companies led the charge from 2012 to 2013, with at least 63% of companies in each industry giving more to international end-recipients. Service companies increased giving to Disaster Relief, most notably to Super Typhoon Haiyan recovery efforts in the Philippines. Increases from Manufacturing companies were less reactive and focused on support of community development and educa-tion programs.

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM TYPE

Companies use many factors to deter-mine international giving budgets, including forward-looking inputs (e.g., growth opportunities abroad), and current business inputs (e.g., the per-centage of revenue that is earned inter-nationally or the companys international employee footprint).

Companies that operate globally typically give a higher proportion of total gifts to international end-recipients. Below are the average international giving (as a percentage of total giving) levels by revenue-composition tier:

ADVANCING THE GLOBAL STANDARD

Recent increases in global funding indi-cate that giving will continue to follow revenues as companies grow around the world. Country-specific regulations, such as the India Companies Bill, which requires the largest companies to give 2% of profits to charity, make a global valuation standard extremely important for companies operating abroad.

In 2011, CECP partnered with Deloitte to create the leading standard for defin-ing a corporate charitable contribution, as each country has its own laws and standards. After a transition year in 2015, CECP and The Conference Board will fully convert to this new guidance for Giving in Numbers: 2016 Edition, building on the recent success of CECPs research publication on global giving trends, Giving Around the Globe.

INTERNATIONAL GIVING CONTINUED

FIGURE 10

Percentage of Companies by Changes in Funding to International Recipients, Matched-Set Data

2010 to 2011 2011 to 2012 2012 to 2013

N=58

Increased International Giving International Giving Remained Flat Decreased International Giving

7%

9%

10%

40%48%

36%

53%43%

54%

Median International Gift Increased from $3.11 Million in 2010 to $3.61 Million

in 2011


in 2012


in 2013


International Revenues Comprise:

International Giving as a % of Total

Giving

Less than 10% of Total Revenues (n=34)

2%

Between 10% and 50% of Total Revenues (n=25)

14%

More than 50% of Total Revenues (n=21)

25%


Company-Wide Days of Service Most Successful

Company-Wide Days of Service were the most suc-cessful volunteer programs for domestic employees, followed by Dollars for Doers and Paid-Release-Time programs. As for volunteer programs offered to international employees, Flexible Scheduling programs were iden-tified as the most successful. See page 24.

Pro Bono Service Expands to All Industries

For the first time since Giving in Numbers began reporting on employee engagement, Pro Bono Service programs were reported by at least one com-pany in each industry. Among companies reporting Pro Bono Service dollar values in 2013, 67% have increased cash con-tributions since the end of the Great Recession (N=30). See page 25.

Utilities Employees Volunteer the Most

The average percentage of Utilities employees volunteering at least one hour on company time in 2013 was 42.2%, higher than in any other industry. See page 23.

Year-Round Matching Gifts Increased

Among companies offering Year-Round matching gifts since 2010, median contributions increased by 8%. In 2013 Workplace Giving Campaigns increased by 1% and Dollars for Doers contributions decreased by 33%. A majority of companies (57%) strategically targeted matching gifts to predetermined cause areas or to specific nonprofit partners. See page 27.

Employee and Stakeholder EngagementKEY FINDINGS IN THIS SECTION:


TYPES OF VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS

The Giving in Numbers Survey defines a formal employee-volunteer program as a planned, managed effort that seeks to motivate and enable employees to volun-teer under the employers sponsorship.

In 2013, 204 companies reported having a formal domestic employee-volunteer program; 61% of those companies also offered a volunteer program for international employees.

Figure 11 presents the percentage of companies offering each type of service program, with Dollars for Doers offered most for domestic employees and Employee Recognition Awards offered most for international employees. CECP encourages companies to partner with nonprofit organizations to devise employee engagement policies that best meet community needs and business priorities.

TRENDS IN OFFERINGS

Most companies offer four to six domestic volunteer programs and one to three international volunteer programs. The following programs realized the largest gains in the percentage of companies offering them in their home market (N=100):

ii Pro Bono Service: Increased from 34% of companies in 2010 to 50% in 2013. See page 25.

ii Paid-Release Time: Increased from 51% of companies in 2010 to 59% in 2013.

ii Board Leadership: Increased from 45% of companies in 2010 to 50% in 2013.

Among volunteer programs available to international employees, the following programs realized the largest gains (N=55):

ii Pro Bono Service: Increased from 24% of companies in 2010 to 35% in 2013.

ii Paid-Release Time: Increased from 47% of companies in 2010 to 58% in 2013.

ii Family Volunteering: Increased from 47% of companies in 2010 to 53% in 2013.

VOLUNTEER PARTICIPATION

In 2013, the average percentage of employees volunteering at least one hour on company time over the course of the year was 30.7% (N=112). The median number of hours per participating employee was six (n=60). The top quartile had a minimum of 48.5% of employees volunteering on company time. Among industries, Utilities employees volunteered the most often.

EMPLOYEE VOLUNTEERISM

Domestic, N=204 International, N=125

FIGURE 11

Corporate Volunteer Opportunities, 2013, Percentage of Companies Offering Each Program

Dollars for Doers

Employee-Volunteer Awards

Paid-Release Time

Flexible Scheduling

Family Volunteer

Company-Wide Day

Board Leadership

Pro Bono Service

Team Grants

Retiree Volunteer

Incentive Bonus

Volunteer Sabbatical

59%57%

55%

51% 50% 49%47%

41% 40%

32%

4% 3%5%

2%

15%

29%26%

22%

42%46%

50%50%

55%

33%

Average Percentage of Employees Volunteering At Least One Hour

On Company Time in 2013

All Companies, N=112 30.7%

Utilities, n=9 42.2%

Health Care, n=9 34.9%

Financials, n=36 31.1%

Consumer Discretionary, n=16 31.1%

Materials, n=5 29.6%

Consumer Staples, n=6 28.0%

Technology, n=14 25.2%

Industrials, n=8 24.5%

Energy, n=5 21.0%

Communications was excluded due to a small sample size.


MEASURING THE VALUE OF EMPLOYEE VOLUNTEERISM

In 2013, 22% of companies reported that their company measured the business value of employee volunteerism, often partnering with Human Resources to include questions about job satisfaction in employee surveys.

Employee volunteerism is crucial to helping leading companies engage staff, boost morale, and improve overall job satisfaction. Corporate leaders attending the CECP Summit in May 2014 recog-nized Paid-Release-Time policies as the top socially motivated tactic for effec-tively increasing employee satisfaction with their company, compared to other types of programs like matching gifts. The breakdown of responses from 135 giving professionals asked about the most effective socially motivated tactic for increasing employee satisfaction was:

1. Volunteer Time Off: 47%

2. Year-Round Matching Gifts: 22%

3. Communicating (Internally) About Signature Programs or Large Grants: 21%

4. Matching-Gift Events (e.g., United Way Campaigns): 9%

PAID-RELEASE TIME EXPANSION

Outside of Pro Bono Service, Paid-Release-Time volunteer programs were the fastest-growing engagement program in 2013. Not surprisingly, employee participation rates grew from 31.97% in 2010 to 36.56% in 2013 (n=36) and median hours volunteered on company time increased by 37% from 45,211 in 2010 to 61,938 in 2013 (n=28).

Figure 12 shows the percentage of com-panies giving employees time away from work to volunteer. Financials and Consumer Discretionary companies were the most likely to offer Paid-Release-Time programs.

The following table reveals which types of Financials companies offered paid time off to volunteer most often:

MOST SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS

The Giving in Numbers Survey asks respon-dents to rate the most successful volunteer programs for domestic employees and those based outside of their headquarters country. Successful volunteer programs are supported and understood organiza-tion-wide and have specific, measurable goals that are tracked. Please find the full description of successful programs in CECPs Valuation Guide.

In 2013, among companies offering a Company-Wide Day of Service to domestic employees, 80% identified this program as among its most successful (N=95). This 80% success rate was higher than that of any other domestic volunteer program. Dollars for Doers was second, with a suc-cess rate of 71% (N=103), while Paid-Release-Time volunteer programs ranked third, with a success rate of 68% (N=102).

Among companies offering volunteer programs to international employees, Flexible Scheduling programs had the highest success rate (53%, N=57), followed by Employee-Volunteer Awards (52%, N=66) and Paid-Release Time (37%, N=104).

EMPLOYEE VOLUNTEERISM CONTINUED

FIGURE 12

Industry Breakdown of Percentage of Companies Offering Paid-Release-Time Volunteer Programs, 2013

74%

68%

60%

60%

55%

45%

39%

38%

33%

33%

Financials n=46

Consumer Discretionary n=28

Energy n=10

Health Care n=25

Communications n=11

Technology n=20

Industrials n=18

Consumer Staples n=16

Materials n=15

Utilities n=15

Percentage of Companies Offering Paid-Release Time

All Other Financial Companies, n=10

80%

Institutional Financial Services, n=9

79%

Insurance, n=15 73%

Banking, n=12 67%


CHARACTERISTICS OF PRO BONO SERVICE

Pro Bono Service is distinct from other forms of skills-based employee engage-ment in the following three ways:

1. Commitment: The company is responsible for staffing the project, ensuring its completion and quality, and applying the highest professional standards to the engagement.

2. Professional Services: Participating employees must use their core job skills as specified in their official job descrip-tions. Projects that utilize only a portion of an employees core competencies are considered volunteerism rather than Pro Bono Service.

3. Indirect Services: All services must be provided through a 501(c)(3) organi-zation or an international equivalent.

Based on the inherent differences between Pro Bono Services and other forms of employee engagement, Pro Bono Service is reported in the Giving in Numbers Survey as non-cash and valued at Fair Market Value (FMV). CECPs Valuation Guide includes instructions for reporting Pro Bono Service hours at FMV.

INDUSTRY COMPARISONS

Figure 13 shows the average percentage breakdown of non-cash giving by industry for 2013. As with past years, Service companies provided a greater percent-age than Manufacturing companies did of non-cash contributions in the form of Pro Bono Service and Other Non-Cash donations (e.g., office equipment, real estate, or the use of company facili-ties). Manufacturing companies provided the majority of non-cash contributions through product donations.

The number of companies reporting Pro Bono Services has increased each year since 2010, with companies from industries like Energy, Industrials, and Utilities creating new programs during that time. It is clear that Pro Bono Service is no longer just for lawyers, accountants, and financiers, as every industry was represented in the 2013 pro bono analysis for the first time since Giving in Numbers began reporting on employee engage-ment programs.

PRO BONO SERVICE TRENDS

Pro Bono Service is the fastest-growing employee engagement program, with half of all companies in the matched-set analysis offering programs in 2013, compared to 34% of companies in 2010. A majority of new offerings (20 companies, or 87% of new offerings) were added in 2012 and 2013, driven by significant growth across a variety of industries.

In addition, the number of companies reporting a dollar value for pro bono programs increased from 23 companies in 2010 to 47 companies in 2013 (30 Service companies and 17 Manufacturing companies). In 2013, the median value of Pro Bono Services was $300,000 (N=47). It does not appear that the growth in pro bono offerings offsets cash contributions. Among companies reporting a dollar value for pro bono support in 2013, 67% increased cash contributions from 2010 to 2013 (N=30).

PRO BONO SERVICE

Product Donations Pro Bono Service Other Non-Cash

FIGURE 13

Breakdown of Non-Cash Giving by Industry, 2013, Average Percentages

All Companies (N=143)

Manufacturing (n=68)

Service (n=75)

Communications (n=7)

Consumer Discretionary (n=25)

Consumer Staples (n=19)

Energy (n=7)

Financials (n=19)

Health Care (n=20)

Industrials (n=11)

Materials (n=8)

Technology (n=19)

Utilities (n=8)

21%19%60%

13%10%77%

28%27%45%

27%13%60%

17%6%77%

11%89%

20%14%66%

28%50%22%

8%17%75%

27%24%49%

44%4%52%

3%32%65%

75%23%2%


MATCHING-GIFT PROGRAMS

In 2013, 86% of companies offered at least one matching-gift program to employees. Eighty percent of companies offered at least two types of matching programs (N=184).

Year-Round Policy:

ii Percentage of Companies Offering Program To (N=98): ii Full-Time Employees: 97%ii Part-Time Employees: 44%ii International Employees: 36%ii Retirees: 36%ii Corporate Board Members: 67%

ii Median Percentage of Employees Who Participated: 9.0% (N=36).

ii Ratio: A majority of companies (87%) offered a 1:1 match, while some multiply employee investments with a 1.5x or 2.0x match to specific strategic partners or cause areas (N=69).

ii Caps: The median cap was $5,000 per employee (n=68), sometimes with a higher opportunity for specific cause areas (typically Higher Education). Caps ranged from $300 to $50,000.

ii Employee Choice: Among companies giving predominantly through a Year-Round Policy, 49% targeted matches to predetermined strategic partners or cause areas (n=79).

Workplace Giving Campaigns:


ii Median Percentage of Employees Who Participated: 30.5% (N=38).

ii Ratio: The majority (67%) of companies made a 1:1 match. Another common approach is to match 50% of every dollar contributed by employees (N=49).

ii Caps: The median cap was $10,000 per employee (n=21).

ii Employee Choice: Among companies giving predominantly through a Workplace Giving Campaign, 66% targeted matches to predetermined strategic partners or cause areas (n=65).

Dollars for Doers:


ii Median Percentage of Employees Who Participated: 3.0% (n=23).

ii Ratio: The median match in 2013 was $10 per hour volunteered (n=37).

ii Caps: Most companies capped Dollars for Doers at $500 per employee.

ii Employee Choice: Among compa-nies matching predominantly through Dollars for Doers programs, 57% targeted matches to predetermined strategic partners or cause areas (n=7).

Disaster-Relief Matching Programs:


ii Median Percentage of Employees Who Participated: 4.5% (n=14).

ii Ratio: Most programs offered a 1:1 match, with some companies offering more depending on the severity of the disaster.

ii Caps: Annual caps were typically $5,000 per employee, but this varied based on the severity of the disaster and its proximity to the companys offices and employee bases.

MATCHING GIFTS

FIGURE 14

Percentage of Companies Offering Matching Gifts by Program Type, 2013

N=184

Any Type of Matching-Gift

Program*

Year-Round Policy

Workplace Giving

Campaign

Dollars for Doers

Disaster Relief

Other

66%

86%

56% 54%

42%

25%

*Note: The 86% of companies offering any type of matching-gift program is based on the full Giving in Numbers sample of 261 companies. Descriptions of each program type can be found in CECPs Valuation Guide.

95% 93% 93% 91% 89% 88% 88% 87%

72% 71%

FIGURE 15

Percentage of Companies Offering Matching Gifts and Median Matching-Gift Contributions as a Percentage of Total Cash Giving, Industry Breakdown, 2013

Percentage of Companies Offering Matching Gifts in 2013

Matching-Gift Contributions as a Percentage of Total Cash Gifts

Utilities (n=21)

Energy (n=14)

Financials (n=55)


Materials (n=18)

Health Care (n=26)

Industrials (n=26)

Technology (n=31)


Consumer Discretionary

(n=34)

7.80%11.88% 12.11%

4.94%

14.19% 13.30 14.39%17.31%

8.93%12.72%


MATCHING GIFTS BY INDUSTRY

In 2013, companies delivered a median 12.32% of total cash contributions through matching gifts (N=184). As illustrated in Figure 15, Technology companies gave the highest proportion of matching-gift contributions as a percentage of total cash gifts (17.31%). Often, these companies allowed employees to donate to a nonprofit of the employees choice: 65% of Technology firms did not limit which nonprofit organizations are eligible to receive a matched grant (n=23). Only 20% of Industrials companies, the industry that gave the next-highest amount in terms of matching percentages, left the program open to the discretion of employees (n=20).

Consumer Staples and Consumer Discretionary companies were least likely to offer matching gifts in 2013, prob-ably due to the difficulty of managing matching-gift programs among a decen-tralized workforce. While 69% of retailers matched employee gifts in 2013, 87% of all other companies offered matching gifts that same year (N=261).

YEAR-OVER-YEAR TRENDS

The median contribution to each program type changed between 2010 and 2013 by the following amounts (including only companies providing each program type in each year):

ii Year-Round Policy: +8% (n=61)

ii Workplace Giving Campaigns: +1% (n=48)

ii Dollars for Doers: -33% (n=57)

The way in which matching-gift trends affect the overall contributions budget differs between companies, but it appears that higher levels of employee participation through these programs increases the total contributions made. Among companies that increased matching gifts from 2010 to 2013, 72% increased total giving in the same period and 74% of those companies increased total cash contributions as well (N=46).

ENHANCING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

At its 2014 CEO roundtable, the annual Board of Boards, CECP asked CEOs which stakeholder groups encouragement would matter most to a decision to expand their companys investment in the community. The breakdown of responses was:

ii Employees: 36%

ii Customers: 22%

ii Board of Directors: 22%

ii Shareholders: 14%

ii Nonprofit/Community Leaders: 3%

ii Media: 3%

ii Government: 0%

These findings echoed The Conference Board CEO Challenge 2014, a research report that rated Human Capital and Customer Relationships as the top two challenges facing CEOs around the world. CEOs clearly value the input of their employees and matching-gift programs offer a unique opportunity to give a companys staff a voice in determining funding priorities.

MATCHING GIFTS CONTINUED


DEFINING PHILANTHROPY LEVERAGE

In an effort to understand the full reach of a companys investment into communities around the globe, CECP, in association with The Conference Board, collects data on the funds leveraged for nonprofits through company relationships with customers, vendors, suppliers, and employees.

To be included as philanthropic leverage, funds must be raised from formal cam-paigns meeting the following criteria:

ii Corporate Commitment: Formal campaigns must be company-sponsored, organized by a professional giving officer, and run nationally. Campaigns that occur only in particular offices, regions, or stores are excluded.

ii Nonprofit Beneficiaries: Fund recipi-ents must be 501(c)(3) organizations or the international equivalent.

Any contribution provided by the com-pany is excluded.

INDUSTRY COMPARISONS

Figure 16 shows that the median total dollar amount raised from employees, often through matching-gift programs, was $1.9 million in 2013 (N=95).

The median dollar amount donated per corporate employee was $69 in 2013, although results differed by industry:

Consumer Discretionary and Consumer Staples companies raised the most funds from non-employees, including at the register fundraising from retailers.

YEAR-OVER-YEAR TRENDS

In the matched set, the median dollar amount raised from employees decreased by 8% from 2010 ($4.86 million) to 2013 ($4.49 million), with 55% of companies raising less from employees since 2010 (N=33). However, 58% of companies increased the number of nonprofit orga-nizations receiving funds from employee-leverage campaigns from 2010 to 2013 (N=17), indicating that companies are allowing wider breadth in choice for determining how donations are used.

As shown on page 24, matching-gift fundraising events received the lowest number of votes from corporate giving professionals asked to rank socially motivated employee engagement tactics at CECPs 2014 Summit. This lends insight into why employee-raised funding has decreased in recent years. While matching programs are an important benefit, volunteer activities appear to be in higher demand for many of the companies participating in this study.

PHILANTHROPIC LEVERAGE

FIGURE 16

Philanthropic Leverage: Money Raised from Corporate Fundraising Campaigns, 2013, Medians

MONEY RAISED FROM NON-EMPLOYEES Median

Number of Fundraising Campaigns Offered per Year N=44 1

Total Number of Campaign Days (Across All Campaigns) N=35 72

Total Marketing/Administrative Dollars Spent N=16 $38,257

Number of Nonprofit Partners Supported N=33 8

Total Dollar Amount Generated for Nonprofit Partners N=38 $1,450,000

MONEY RAISED FROM EMPLOYEES

Total Dollar Amount Raised from Employee Payroll Deductions N=95 $1,901,602

Total Dollar Amount Raised from Other Employee Contributions N=87 $500,000

Number of Nonprofit Partners Supported N=83 300

Industry

Median Dollar Amount

Donated per Employee

All Companies, N=115 $69.27

Communications, n=6 $50.45

Consumer Discretionary, n=18 $26.59

Consumer Staples, n=10 $30.19

Energy, n=6 $95.29

Financials, n=24 $131.85

Health Care, n=8 $49.26

Industrials, n=16 $55.10

Materials, n=7 $64.77

Technology, n=11 $62.99

Utilities, n=9 $187.32

Majority Have Corporate Foundations

In 2013, 79% of companies operated a corporate founda-tion, the most common of which is a predominately pass-through structure that receives funds from the company and distributes those funds over the course of the same year. See page 30.

American Northeast Leads Foundation Endowments

The American Northeast (as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau) had the highest pro-portion of companies operating a predominately endowed foundation. A pass-through structure was most common among all other regions. See page 30.

Corporate Community Affairs Departments Increase Giving

Corporate Community Affairs departments took more control over corporate giving, as the average corporate contribution increased by 28% from 2010 to 2013, compared to a 2% growth from foundations. See page 31.

Companies Increase Team Size

From 2010 to 2013, 63% of companies increased the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff on grantmaking and employee engagement teams. Despite the growth in team size, management and program costs declined from 2010 to 2013. See page 32.

Most Companies Measure Societal Outcomes and/or Impacts

76% of companies reported that they measured societal out-comes and/or impacts in 2013, primarily related to Education, Health and Social Services, and Community and Economic Development initiatives. See pages 34 and 35.

Administration Practices and Program CostsKEY FINDINGS IN THIS SECTION:



CORPORATE FOUNDATIONS

FOUNDATION STRUCTURES

In 2013, 79% of companies operated a corporate foundation (N=261). Respondents classified their foundation structures as follows:

ii Predominately Endowed: Funded primarily from returns on an endow-ment (asset reserves invested to make a return).

ii Predominately Pass-Through: Funded annually by the company, with typically 100% of those funds distributed throughout the year.

ii Hybrid: A combination of endowed and pass-through models, with neither structure dominating.

ii Operating: A stand-alone nonprofit, granting at least 85% of its assets in programming or services directly to end-recipients.

ii Other: A structure different from the types listed.

As displayed in Figure 17, the majority of industries most commonly operated predominately pass-through foundations (N=205).

CORPORATE TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Just over half (55%) of the 205 compa-nies with a foundation transferred funds to the corporate foundation in 2013:

Some endowed foundations make con-tributions based on levels of investment income, which may result in considerable year-over-year differences. Corporate foundations often also have access to principal dollars with approval from the board of directors.

REGIONAL FOUNDATION GRANTMAKING

The culture and norms of the companys headquarter region influence how it manages philanthropic functions. Among all U.S. Census Bureau regions, as well as the international regions considered, the American Northeast (n=57) had the highest proportion of companies operating a predominately endowed foundation. A predominately pass-through model was most common in each of the other regions. Among companies based outside of the United States, only 6% of corporate foundations were predominately endowed (n=16).

A primary benefit of endowing a founda-tion is to continue consistent levels of grantmaking during slow business cycles, although endowments are not immune to market downturns as they often lose value during recessions. From 2010 to 2013, the median percentage change in foundation giving was +0.41% for endowed founda-tions (n=24) and -5.44% for pass-through foundations (n=42).

FIGURE 17

Percentage of Companies by Corporate Foundation Structures, Industry Breakdown, 2013

Hybrid Operating Predominately Endowed Predominately Pass-Through Other

38%33%19% 10%

45%20%17% 7% 11%

22%22%11% 45%

62%10%9% 5% 14%

40%22%29% 4% 5%

57% 43%

55%9%18% 9% 9%

40%25%10% 5% 20%

33%28%11% 17% 11%

50%18%18% 11% 3%

57%22%14% 7%





Energy (n=7)

Financials (n=45)

Health Care (n=21)

Industrials (n=22)

Materials (n=14)

Technology (n=20)

Utilities (n=18)

Foundation Classification

Percentage of Companies Transferring

Funds in 2013

Median Transfer Amount

Predominately Endowed (n=41)

27% $1.0 Million

Predominately Pass-Through

(n=93)70% $8.4 Million

Hybrid (n=34) 50% $13.5 Million

Operating (n=15)

87% $6.0 Million

Other (n=22) 32% $3.1 Million


BUDGET OVERSIGHT

Corporate Community Affairs Corporate Foundation All Other Groups

FIGURE 18

Total Giving by Budget Source, 2013, Average Percentages

24%33%43%

24%18%58%

31%25%44%

40%24%36%

41%11%48%

12%46%42%

35%24%41%

18%46%36%

21%36%43%

12%36%52%

33%22%45%





Energy (n=10)

Financials (n=41)

Health Care (n=21)

Industrials (n=25)

Materials (n=14)

Technology (n=19)

Utilities (n=14)

BUDGET TERM DEFINITIONS

An analysis of giving by budget source indicates the extent to which corporate headquarters manages a companys giving portfolio. In the Giving in Numbers Survey, companies separate their total giving, inclusive of direct cash, foundation cash, and non-cash, into three budget source designa-tions, each indicating the group from which the community investment was drawn:

ii Corporate Community Affairs: Giving from one centralized philanthropy budget. This represents giving by the corporate headquarters contribu-tions department (e.g., Corporate Community Affairs, Community Relations, External Affairs).

ii Corporate Foundation: Giving from the corp

Documents

Giving in Numbers 2014